[OnTheIce]

[bootlegga]

Yeah, a conservative talking about another conservative. Rex doesn't have anymore credibility than Atwood IMO.

It's like that Winston Churchill quote conservatives on CKA like to toss out all the time (If you're 20 and not a liberal you don't have a heart and if you're 40 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain). One partisan's opinion of his opponents doesn't necessarily make it the gospel truth. Same goes here. One conservative saying that another conservative is a great guy doesn't carry any water with me.

I'm not saying that I think he has some dark agenda, but many of the policies his party will enact in the next four years will NOT be supported by everyone in Canada - and several of those changes, like scrapping the gun registry, will be opposed by the majority of Canadians.

My only concern is that he doesn't change Canada too much in those four years - or even worse, commit us to ill-fated conflicts like the one he wanted us to join in Iraq (yes, I know Ignatief also supported that war, but has since realized it was folly - I have yet to hear Harper recant his opinion on Iraq). After all, it was Stephen Harper who called Canada "a northern European socialist state that is proud of that fact".

That alone speaks volumes about the path he thinks Canada should take - one which is not supported by most Canadians.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga wrote:

That alone speaks volumes about the path he thinks Canada should take - one which is not supported by most Canadians.

Rarely is a majority government supported by the majority of the people.

Why is this all of a sudden a big talking point on forums, twitter and in the media?

[Mr_Canada]

Canada is going to be in A-Stan for longer now, isn't it?

Dark enough for me.

[Zipperfish]

Rex might be a Conservative or a conservative, but he nailed it for me. You might not like Harper's policies, but this notion of some incipient dystopian nightmare is a little over the top.

Atwood's always had a weakness for hyperbole.

[uwish]

Fun facts (for those that care to base their arguments on facts):

Total elections in Canada since 1867 - 41
Number of Parties with 50% or greater of the popular vote - 16 (9 Con/7 Lib)
Number of times >50% with only 2 parties running - 11 (last one 1917)

Over the last 94 years only 5 parties managed to win 50% or greater of the popular vote. Obviously the larger the number of parties running in an election, the less likely you will have one party garnering 50%+ of the popular vote.

The last time a party won 50%+ of the popular was 1984 (Cons). In the 8 elections since, the closest has been 43% in 1988 (which really isn't that close to 50).

Of the 8 prior elections, 3 resulted in a minority, not coincidentally, around the same time as the birth of the BQ and Reform/CA. More parties and more fractured popular vote.

Conversely there were 5 majority governments in this time period where the high water mark for the winning popular vote was 43%. Getting a majority of the voting population (those bothering to vote) to vote for 1 party is unlikely in today's political environment.

As such, complaints about the majority government not representing the majority of the population is disingenuous. It is not the fault of the winning party as all parties run under the same rules and conditions.

[Arctic_Menace]

My problem is that the Reform Party pretty much hijacked the Conservative party after the merger. Look at the most of the people in positions of power within the government; former Reform Party MP's or supporters. It's no so much a Conservative Majority (although the last one threatened to tear the country apart) as it is a Reform-led Conservative majority, which is a cause for concern.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

That alone speaks volumes about the path he thinks Canada should take - one which is not supported by most Canadians.

Rarely is a majority government supported by the majority of the people.

Why is this all of a sudden a big talking point on forums, twitter and in the media?

That statement had NOTHING to do with the election results - it had to do with current opinions on current issues.

The majority of Canadians WANT to keep the gun registry (and have stronger gun control), just like the majority do NOT want privatized health care or a ban on abortions/gay marriages, the war in Iraq, etc.

As such, Harper's election platform does not represent what the majority of Canadians (voters or not) want - they represent what he and his supporters want - which is typical of course.

My point is that Harper will need to walk a fine line in what he does because if he gets too radical (like re-examining gay marriage or abortions or gun control as some of his supporters would undoubtedly like), in four years he'll be turfed out on his ass and the right will spend another decade or two in the political wilderness like they did after the 1993 election. Harper may be a right wing politician, but if he wants to be in office longer than four years, he'll need to govern from the middle.

Given that much of Harper's traditional base comes from rural areas - which nowadays account for less than 20% of our population, Harper will need to be very mindful of urban voters and that the issues which are critical to them are not an issue with his supporters (and vice versa). He may have won a lot of seats in the GTA this time, but 2015 could be very different if Harper isn't mindful of the demographics that gave him a majority. His pandering to Quebec prior to the election shows that he should be smart enough not to turn our country into a neo-con paradise, but you never know.

The fear many people have is that he will change institutions that are part of the Canadian fabric (CBC, health care, etc). Honestly, I don't think he's stupid enough to do so, but given his attitude/actions when he had a minority, the fear is justified IMHO. Hopefully he's smarter than his past actions dictate.

[Curtman]

bootlegga wrote:

(I have yet to hear Harper recant his opinion on Iraq).

You should.. It was pretty good.

[FieryVulpine]

Arctic_Menace wrote:

My problem is that the Reform Party pretty much hijacked the Conservative party after the merger.

Well, wasn't the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance the larger of the two parties at the time of the merger? It stands to reason that they would be the dominant influence thereafter.

bootlegga wrote:

The majority of Canadians WANT to keep the gun registry (and have stronger gun control), just like the majority do NOT want privatized health care or a ban on abortions/gay marriages, the war in Iraq, etc.

As such, Harper's election platform does not represent what the majority of Canadians (voters or not) want - they represent what he and his supporters want - which is typical of course.

Maybe it's the cynicism talking but the majority of the human race has no idea of what the (censored) they want. Hell, I'm not always a 100% sure of what I want and where I stand half the time. So pardon me when I say that I just roll my eyes whenever I hear something like that because the man on the street wants to see the world through their simplistic viewpoint.

There are no easy answers to gun violence and healthcare, and thinking that a registry or throwing money at a problem will make it disappear goes beyond naivete. No wonder I went through multiple facepalms when I heard the Internet scream "the sky is falling!" Monday night and yesterday.

bootlegga wrote:

Hopefully he's smarter than his past actions dictate.

We can only hope but I'm not terribly optimistic.

[Thanos]

Wow. Going by some of the comments here one would almost assume that the Dippers and Liberals actually won the other night.

Don't like the system? Too bad. There'll never be any meaningful electoral reform in ours or anyone else's lifetimes to make election results reflect what all these irresponsible polls keep blathering on about. And, given the rank and dangerous nature of populism no matter which side it currently favours, that's a good thing.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

he wanted us to join in Iraq (yes, I know Ignatief also supported that war, but has since realized it was folly - I have yet to hear Harper recant his opinion on Iraq)

Didn't you listen to his interview with Mansbridge when the leaders were asked about errors in judgment they made in the past. Harper stated that based on what we now know, his stance was wrong. You guys are slamming Rex because he's a conservative commenting on a Conservative. Should we then dismiss your opinions as being invalid because they are merely the sour grapes of poor losers?

[Mr_Canada]

Thanos wrote:

Wow. Going by some of the comments here one would almost assume that the Dippers and Liberals actually won the other night.

I'm sure the comments if the NDP won would mostly be ripping into 'Handjob Taliban Jackoff Layton'.

[Caelon]

Arctic_Menace wrote:

My problem is that the Reform Party pretty much hijacked the Conservative party after the merger. Look at the most of the people in positions of power within the government; former Reform Party MP's or supporters. It's no so much a Conservative Majority (although the last one threatened to tear the country apart) as it is a Reform-led Conservative majority, which is a cause for concern.

The Reform Party was created because the Conservative party had fallen out of touch with a significant part of the population with right wing political views. Reform had some wing nuts just like every other party. The Liberals turfed one during the election for racist comments against aboriginals. It dosen't make all Liberals racist just the individual. As FV stated at the time of the merger the largest group was with Reform and so the largest group in a merged entity was bound to be Reformers. Since then the Conservative Party has either weeded out the members with far right one issue agendas or the individuals have developed to see the world is a bigger canvas.

Do you hold the same views on all issues you did 10 years ago? You would be an unusual person if you did and so you must allow the members of the Conservative Party the same freedom to change opinions and policies to reflect the times and not the past.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

That alone speaks volumes about the path he thinks Canada should take - one which is not supported by most Canadians.

Rarely is a majority government supported by the majority of the people.

Why is this all of a sudden a big talking point on forums, twitter and in the media?

That statement had NOTHING to do with the election results - it had to do with current opinions on current issues.

The majority of Canadians WANT to keep the gun registry (and have stronger gun control), just like the majority do NOT want privatized health care or a ban on abortions/gay marriages, the war in Iraq, etc.

As such, Harper's election platform does not represent what the majority of Canadians (voters or not) want - they represent what he and his supporters want - which is typical of course.

My point is that Harper will need to walk a fine line in what he does because if he gets too radical (like re-examining gay marriage or abortions or gun control as some of his supporters would undoubtedly like), in four years he'll be turfed out on his ass and the right will spend another decade or two in the political wilderness like they did after the 1993 election. Harper may be a right wing politician, but if he wants to be in office longer than four years, he'll need to govern from the middle.

Given that much of Harper's traditional base comes from rural areas - which nowadays account for less than 20% of our population, Harper will need to be very mindful of urban voters and that the issues which are critical to them are not an issue with his supporters (and vice versa). He may have won a lot of seats in the GTA this time, but 2015 could be very different if Harper isn't mindful of the demographics that gave him a majority. His pandering to Quebec prior to the election shows that he should be smart enough not to turn our country into a neo-con paradise, but you never know.

The fear many people have is that he will change institutions that are part of the Canadian fabric (CBC, health care, etc). Honestly, I don't think he's stupid enough to do so, but given his attitude/actions when he had a minority, the fear is justified IMHO. Hopefully he's smarter than his past actions dictate.

Your comment is one of many regarding this majority issue. There are tons of people going on and on about how the majority of people didn't support Harper. Welcome to Canadian politics people!

Majority governments often do things that the majority of people don't like such as raising taxes, cutting spending, etc. To expect Harper to be any different just because he's a Conservative and has a few wing nuts in his caucus is unrealistic.

There's all these fear words like "radical" and "extreme right" being used by anti-Harper folks still going ahead with the hidden agenda card.

Harper knows how the government needs to be run (from the centre) and he knows that the wing nuts in his caucus will be kept in check, just like all the parties before him have done so as well.